(04-03-2014 11:31 AM)BigOwensboroCard Wrote:  For the league it would be more beneficial to have Cincy in the west so there is a potential matchup of two of their better teams to meet in a CCG with Cincy representing the west and UCF representing the east. This would be a good game for TV, but we will have to see what they do.

Actually, I think there may be more merit to a north-south divisions---kinda does the same thing.

North

UConn
Temple
Cinci
Tulsa
Navy
Memphis


South

SMU
Houston
Tulane
UCF
USF
ECU

(04-03-2014 11:37 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-03-2014 11:31 AM)BigOwensboroCard Wrote:  For the league it would be more beneficial to have Cincy in the west so there is a potential matchup of two of their better teams to meet in a CCG with Cincy representing the west and UCF representing the east. This would be a good game for TV, but we will have to see what they do.

Actually, I think there may be more merit to a north-south divisions---kinda does the same thing.

North

UConn
Temple
Cinci
Tulsa
Navy
Memphis


South

SMU
Houston
Tulane
UCF
USF
ECU

If it were North-South, it'd be more like Northeast-Southwest. ECU would be North and Tulsa would be South.

(04-02-2014 03:42 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  

(04-02-2014 02:47 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  [quote='jrj84105' pid='10628500' dateline='1396463484']
I wouldnt go that far---but they would have been closer than they now.

I'm still not sure why, knowing what they know now, the better schools of the MWC and AAC don't reconsider their options. What's the magic combination needed to complete a dissolution of the AAC and MWC conferences?

EAST:
UCONN, CINCINNATI, ECU, Memphis, USF, UCF, SMU, HOU, Navy

WEST
SDSU*, FrSU, USU, BSU, UNLV, UNM, CSU, WYO, AFA

FB: 8 division games + 1 cross division game (AFA vs Navy annual, rest rotating)

BB: 18 games (rival H:H, every one else once annually).

EDIT: Take USU instead of BYU. This conference already heavily schedules BYU so it gets BYU content (3-4 broadcasts annually) without having to deal with BYU.

The MWC schools indicated above turned us down. *I don't think SDSU would be willing to take the same risk. As I stated in post #77:

(04-03-2014 10:16 AM)Underdog Wrote:  We tried for Air Force and BYU:

http://www.bigeastcoastbias.com/2012/5/2...ealignment


We almost had Air Force:

“In my perfect world, with the Big East on the radar, I would love Air Force, Navy and Army to be in that conference together,” the [Air Force] AD said.

http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com...wn-big-12/

We also went after Fresno St and UNLV:

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball...n-football

Many AAC fans will probably disagree but we should focus on the Mountain Division of the MWC—Air Force is the key. It turned us down because:

“We [Air Force] have partners up and down the Front Range, Gould said, referring to Colorado State, Wyoming and New Mexico.”

http://www.denverpost.com/ci_19491419

Consequently, we should consider four schools in the Mountain Division along with BYU (a long shot) to add with Houston, SMU, and Tulsa:


WEST: AFA, CSU, BYU*/USU**, Houston, SMU, Tulane, Tulsa, UNM, WYO

*Highly unlikely additions, but still worth a try. Army keeps game with Navy, and BYU maintains the same amount of $$$ it makes along with its network.

**Possible second options. However, there could be better second options in the future.

EAST: Army*/UMASS**, UCONN, CINCI, ECU, Memphis, Navy, Temple, USF, UCF


It's not the best of the rest, but I think it's the best expansion options that we could possibly aquire in the future for an all-sports western division.....

Try again for BYU,Army and Air Force.

(04-02-2014 01:31 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  

(04-01-2014 10:00 AM)UConnHusky Wrote:  Boise possibly could, but they bailed on us once already. Effff them. Let them lay in the bed that they have made.

Boise and SDSU bailed on a football only invite which was pretty understandable under the circumstances. Aresco's best option is to build a time machine so he can warn his younger self that the C7 is leaving. Had the AAC expanded by inviting BSU, SDSU, BYU, and maybe a few others as all sports members, the AAC would have placed itself more clearly on the right side of the have/have not divide.

Boise and SDSU did not back out because they were only invited for football. They never would have agreed to come in the first place if the BE had insisted on all sports. And FWIW, those two schools didn't even agree to the football invite because they wanted to be a part of the BE. Their only motivation was to be in any conference with BCS AQ status. By losing that status, it was the BE that could no longer provide what they promised to Boise and SDSU. Not the other way around.

Now, the AAC has nothing to offer those schools that they don't already have.

(04-03-2014 01:55 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(04-02-2014 01:31 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  

(04-01-2014 10:00 AM)UConnHusky Wrote:  Boise possibly could, but they bailed on us once already. Effff them. Let them lay in the bed that they have made.

Boise and SDSU bailed on a football only invite which was pretty understandable under the circumstances. Aresco's best option is to build a time machine so he can warn his younger self that the C7 is leaving. Had the AAC expanded by inviting BSU, SDSU, BYU, and maybe a few others as all sports members, the AAC would have placed itself more clearly on the right side of the have/have not divide.

Boise and SDSU did not back out because they were only invited for football. They never would have agreed to come in the first place if the BE had insisted on all sports. And FWIW, those two schools didn't even agree to the football invite because they wanted to be a part of the BE. Their only motivation was to be in any conference with BCS AQ status. By losing that status, it was the BE that could no longer provide what they promised to Boise and SDSU. Not the other way around.

Now, the AAC has nothing to offer those schools that they don't already have.

Both Boise and SDSU knew that we would eventually lose AQ status. The biggest motivation for Boise was the projected $$$ that we couldn't deliver....

(04-03-2014 02:11 PM)Underdog Wrote:  

(04-03-2014 01:55 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(04-02-2014 01:31 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  

(04-01-2014 10:00 AM)UConnHusky Wrote:  Boise possibly could, but they bailed on us once already. Effff them. Let them lay in the bed that they have made.

Boise and SDSU bailed on a football only invite which was pretty understandable under the circumstances. Aresco's best option is to build a time machine so he can warn his younger self that the C7 is leaving. Had the AAC expanded by inviting BSU, SDSU, BYU, and maybe a few others as all sports members, the AAC would have placed itself more clearly on the right side of the have/have not divide.

Boise and SDSU did not back out because they were only invited for football. They never would have agreed to come in the first place if the BE had insisted on all sports. And FWIW, those two schools didn't even agree to the football invite because they wanted to be a part of the BE. Their only motivation was to be in any conference with BCS AQ status. By losing that status, it was the BE that could no longer provide what they promised to Boise and SDSU. Not the other way around.

Now, the AAC has nothing to offer those schools that they don't already have.

Both Boise and SDSU knew that we would eventually lose AQ status. The biggest motivation for Boise was the projected $$$ that we couldn't deliver....

Probably. But they may have thought "eventually" wouldn't come so soon. And I'm sure they were fully prepared to leave just as soon as the AQ status did. The Big East wasn't "buying" these two programs. They were always just renting.

(04-03-2014 02:16 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(04-03-2014 02:11 PM)Underdog Wrote:  

(04-03-2014 01:55 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(04-02-2014 01:31 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  

(04-01-2014 10:00 AM)UConnHusky Wrote:  Boise possibly could, but they bailed on us once already. Effff them. Let them lay in the bed that they have made.

Boise and SDSU bailed on a football only invite which was pretty understandable under the circumstances. Aresco's best option is to build a time machine so he can warn his younger self that the C7 is leaving. Had the AAC expanded by inviting BSU, SDSU, BYU, and maybe a few others as all sports members, the AAC would have placed itself more clearly on the right side of the have/have not divide.

Boise and SDSU did not back out because they were only invited for football. They never would have agreed to come in the first place if the BE had insisted on all sports. And FWIW, those two schools didn't even agree to the football invite because they wanted to be a part of the BE. Their only motivation was to be in any conference with BCS AQ status. By losing that status, it was the BE that could no longer provide what they promised to Boise and SDSU. Not the other way around.

Now, the AAC has nothing to offer those schools that they don't already have.

Both Boise and SDSU knew that we would eventually lose AQ status. The biggest motivation for Boise was the projected $$$ that we couldn't deliver....

Probably. But they may have thought "eventually" wouldn't come so soon. And I'm sure they were fully prepared to leave just as soon as the AQ status did. The Big East wasn't "buying" these two programs. They were always just renting.

Just the opposite….. Boise tried to see which conference would give in to its demands:

"Boise State is trying to squeeze out as much money as possibly, and is now looking to see if the Big East or Mountain West will allow them to keep their home television rights."

http://www.mwcconnection.com/2012/12/23/...ion-rights

(04-03-2014 01:55 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(04-02-2014 01:31 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  

(04-01-2014 10:00 AM)UConnHusky Wrote:  Boise possibly could, but they bailed on us once already. Effff them. Let them lay in the bed that they have made.

Boise and SDSU bailed on a football only invite which was pretty understandable under the circumstances. Aresco's best option is to build a time machine so he can warn his younger self that the C7 is leaving. Had the AAC expanded by inviting BSU, SDSU, BYU, and maybe a few others as all sports members, the AAC would have placed itself more clearly on the right side of the have/have not divide.

Boise and SDSU did not back out because they were only invited for football. They never would have agreed to come in the first place if the BE had insisted on all sports. And FWIW, those two schools didn't even agree to the football invite because they wanted to be a part of the BE. Their only motivation was to be in any conference with BCS AQ status. By losing that status, it was the BE that could no longer provide what they promised to Boise and SDSU. Not the other way around.

Now, the AAC has nothing to offer those schools that they don't already have.

Actually, that's not entirely accurate. SDSU and Boise already knew the AAC would not be AQ and reaffirmed their stay in the AAC. SDSU wanted to stay even after Boise left, but it was not viable as they would be the only western member. Boise left due to the revised MW deal that guaranteed them about nearly 3 million a year. Additionally, because they were only football members of the AAC, they would have only received 1.4 million in the AAC. Worse yet, they were forced to pay 900K in travel subsidies to be in the Big West, thus AAC membership would have only netted Boise 500K in media earnings. With Boise in the AAC, the money would have been around 3 million a team. Had Boise been an all sports member making 3 million a team, they likely would have stayed.

Had the AAC created a viable true all-sports western division something like

Boise
SDSU
Frenso
UNLV
New Mexico
Houston
SMU
Tulane, Tulsa, Colorado St, or Air Force

Then, then Boise and the western schools would have remained a part of the AAC.

(04-01-2014 10:11 AM)Rich52c Wrote:  

(04-01-2014 10:00 AM)UConnHusky Wrote:  Other than BYU, there isn't a single program out there that will increase the pie that we are already cutting 12 ways... not Wichita, not UMass, not VCU, etc. Boise possibly could, but they bailed on us once already. Effff them. Let them lay in the bed that they have made.

For Aresco, there is only one logical choice... add no new members and work on improving the product in order to get a respectable payout when we renegotiate the contract. This conference will be fine if we can resist the urge to dilute it with new members who don't bring the full package to the table.

BYU and Army football only would add to the value of the AAC.

BYU definitely would....not sure about Army

The #1 target for the American Conference (lose the Athletic part) is obviously BYU....BYU pretty much IS a BCS quality team not in a BCS conference....If they landed BYU, it would be huge!

That said I don't think they land BYU anytime soon.....instead, I think the American should go after New Mexico and Colorado State. That would peel two decent schools away from the American's biggest competitor for becoming power conference #6, and form a good western wing to the conference.

New Mexico is a decent basketball addition, and a flagship school. Colorado State has had some minor success on the football field and is building a new stadium.

Divisions would be:

American East
UConn
Cincinnati
Temple
East Carolina
Navy
South Florida
Central Florida

American West
Colorado St.
New Mexico
Houston
Tulsa
Tulane
SMU
Memphis

Also, is Navy football-only? Would it be possible to pull Villanova away from the Big East and sort of team with Navy for a spot?

I know no one likes hybrid models, but it seems like Navy football only creates an issue....

At one time Aresco was trying to hold the Big East together and secure a TV deal. Now that there is separation, he should try to build the best conference.

If the AAC really wanted to try something outside the box, they would attempt to cajole Toronto and McGill into the NCAA. There would be some serious hurdles, especially in football and football might not be something that could be fully developed but Ontario and Quebec are huge markets.